2858 réponses à ce sujet

[WildOrchid]

"Maker, where did my pointy ears and sense of self-righteousness go?"

 

~Hawke

 

Ahhhh, Hawke.

[Barathos]

Sera is wonderful.

 

…

 

There’s a recurrent theme among the dislikes. I suppose as great, important heroes we’re hell-bent on making a difference; so much so that if a character doesn’t display some kind of a ‘character development’ in response to what we—the great, important hero—do, and especially if we can’t influence their opinions, there’s something wrong with the character.

 

Not that that’s true to begin with. She mellows a little bit.

This isn't a "Great hero" thing. This is a basic story-telling device that occurs in ANYTHING. Every succesful play, book, movie, w/e has character development. Seeing Lucy the Derp stay as Lucy the Derp after following her story for 20 hours + has no gratifying feeling. There's nothing new and different to entice the audience.

 

In plays, actors are constantly told to "Find the change". Figure out what changes from the beginning of the play to the end, if you can't, then why bother? Just play as Joe the Fruit Seller and be done with it. 

 

Change creates feelings, whether positive or negative. After so much evidence that's around Sera, her beliefs make no sense. There's doubt, and then there's idiocy and idiocy gets you killed.

[Costin_Razvan]

Why do people hate her? She's a complete lunatic!

A gibbet indeed. Though at the end I started to like her a bit.

[Heimdall]

This isn't a "Great hero" thing. This is a basic story-telling device that occurs in ANYTHING. Every succesful play, book, movie, w/e has character development. Seeing Lucy the Derp stay as Lucy the Derp after following her story for 20 hours + has no gratifying feeling. There's nothing new and different to entice the audience.

In plays, actors are constantly told to "Find the change". Figure out what changes from the beginning of the play to the end, if you can't, then why bother? Just play as Joe the Fruit Seller and be done with it.

Change creates feelings, whether positive or negative. After so much evidence that's around Sera, her beliefs make no sense. There's doubt, and then there's idiocy and idiocy gets you killed.

1) No, characters don't need to be dynamic over the course of a story to be good characters.

2) What proof? A temple with magic? All that proves is that the ancient elves worshipped SOMETHING that may or may not be a Spirit or demon There's nothing that should force Sera to question her belief in a single god.

[Nathair Nimheil]

This isn't a "Great hero" thing. This is a basic story-telling device that occurs in ANYTHING. Every succesful play, book, movie, w/e has character development.

You're simply incorrect here. What you refer to as character development is being a dynamic character. Some characters are. Many characters are static. I explained this a dozen or so posts back. Being a more or less static character in no way makes a character bad or badly written.

[Barathos]

1) No, characters don't need to be dynamic over the course of a story to be good characters.

2) What proof? A temple with magic? All that proves is that the ancient elves worshipped SOMETHING that may or may not be a Spirit or demon There's nothing that should force Sera to question her belief in a single god.

I didn't say dynamic, I just said there needs to be a change. There was no change in her writing. None. Zippo. Also, when you're in such a life-changing event, like saving the world from Fade-annihilation, you are NOT going to be the same as when you started. The things these people have seen would do some damage to them in some form or another.

 

And, just to define the change more, in shows where there's nothing more then some family drama, people still change. Bonds are made, bonds are broken. Their attitude towards a particular belief changes. SOMETHING is different in them because of this event.

 

You're simply incorrect here. What you refer to as character development is being a dynamic character. Some characters are. Many characters are static. I explained this a dozen or so posts back. Being a more or less static character in no way makes a character bad or badly written.

Just to be perfectly frank so as to avoid further debate: I absolutely disagree with you. Static characters are fine, but static characters in life-changing circumstances? No. The few times you might see that is in a comedy where it really doesn't matter how the character is from start to finish, as long as you get a laugh you win. 

[Nathair Nimheil]

I didn't say dynamic, I just said there needs to be a change.

That is the definition of dynamic.
 

Static characters are fine, but static characters in life-changing circumstances? No.

Yes. Often. Throughout the entire history of literature. All you are saying is you didn't like it in Sera. Well, good for you.

[Larryboy_Dragon]

What do you mean she's static? She goes from being a loner to being part of a family - that's her big change.

 

I love her to bits - a great character, even if she and my 'elfy' character are often at odds, we are still great friends.

[Barathos]

That is the definition of dynamic.
 

Yes. Often. Throughout the entire history of literature. All you are saying is you didn't like it in Sera. Well, good for you.

It's not. It's defined as constantly changing, never stopping. I don't want people to go from John the Heroic to John the Villain to John the Melodramtic Psychopath, they just need to have a change. Something small will do. Dorian doesn't have THAT big of a change. He still wants to help his people and show an example from start to finish, but the change happens with acceptance of his father.

 

Sera? She becomes part of a large organization that views itself as a family unit. Yay! No regret for her Red Jenny contacts being killed, no doubts of her doubts, nothing. She remains this loony-bin of a character that is endearing to some but remains as a character that in no real way could be an actual person.

 

And here's the definition of said word via Merriam.

 

¹dy·nam·ic  adjective \dī-ˈna-mik\

: always active or changing

: having or showing a lot of energy

: of or relating to energy, motion, or physical force

 

[Efvie]

 

It's not. It's defined as constantly changing, never stopping.

 

 

You can’t directly apply the dictionary to literary analysis Anyway, I think another way to explain it is that character development doesn’t mean change in the character—though it can. It can be the viewer/reader/player being led to understand the character better, or to see more sides of them. Or a combination.

[Heimdall]

It's not. It's defined as constantly changing, never stopping. I don't want people to go from John the Heroic to John the Villain to John the Melodramtic Psychopath, they just need to have a change. Something small will do. Dorian doesn't have THAT big of a change. He still wants to help his people and show an example from start to finish, but the change happens with acceptance of his father.
 
Sera? She becomes part of a large organization that views itself as a family unit. Yay! No regret for her Red Jenny contacts being killed, no doubts of her doubts, nothing. She remains this loony-bin of a character that is endearing to some but remains as a character that in no real way could be an actual person.

Why should she feel doubts when a noble that practically personifies everything she hates about the way the nobles treat her "little people" kills one of them in front of her? If anything, her world view is affirmed.

[Wynterdust]

I personally found it refreshing that there was a character that was "What you see is what you get". It was nice to have a character that would just flat out say what was on their mind and is actually honest and up front with the player. It's also nice that she doesn't change just to suit what the player wants. Where's the fun in that? It's great you can't manipulate her way of thinking as it makes her feel a more 'real' character rather than just being able to change her to suit your desires.

 

She also gets plenty of character development as you learn more about her and why she is the way she is. I found she opens up quite a lot especially if you're romancing her with a dalish inquisitor.

[Sjofn]

1) No, characters don't need to be dynamic over the course of a story to be good characters.

2) What proof? A temple with magic? All that proves is that the ancient elves worshipped SOMETHING that may or may not be a Spirit or demon There's nothing that should force Sera to question her belief in a single god.

 

The problem is that there is even less "proof" to support the Maker she's clinging to, and there's really no reason to agree with her logic of "if there were elf gods, there's no Maker at all," as there's really no reason to believe they can't both exist in some way (something I wish I could've pointed out).

 

I'm not saying she should embrace the elf gods or anything silly like that, but her continuing to insist I'm stupid because my dwarf shrugged and said she really had no idea what's going on with regards to ANY of the gods doesn't really reflect well on her. I get that it's mostly because she's an agnostic that desperately doesn't want to be one, and dammit reinforce her beliefs because oh crap what if there's nothing, but I also get why people would find that really off putting.

[robertthebard]

I didn't say dynamic, I just said there needs to be a change. There was no change in her writing. None. Zippo. Also, when you're in such a life-changing event, like saving the world from Fade-annihilation, you are NOT going to be the same as when you started. The things these people have seen would do some damage to them in some form or another.
 
And, just to define the change more, in shows where there's nothing more then some family drama, people still change. Bonds are made, bonds are broken. Their attitude towards a particular belief changes. SOMETHING is different in them because of this event.
 
Just to be perfectly frank so as to avoid further debate: I absolutely disagree with you. Static characters are fine, but static characters in life-changing circumstances? No. The few times you might see that is in a comedy where it really doesn't matter how the character is from start to finish, as long as you get a laugh you win.

It's a good thing, then, that Sera isn't static. She can, and does change throughout the arc of the story. The problem? She doesn't change the way some people want her to. They want her to be elfy, they want her to pat them on the back and say "There there, I'm sorry that I was right all along about the Dalish being ****** for living in the forest", this, despite the fact that she's really not wrong, all things considered. They didn't get that, she didn't conform to the Inquisitor's will, so there was no change.

The actual truth is, she can, and will reveal a lot about herself. This is caused by her coming to trust the Inquisitor. Here's the Thedas shaking revelation of the day: Learning to trust is growth. Trusting is change. Sorry for your bad luck that she didn't turn into a lap dog for those that were looking for it, but really, who's to blame there? Sera's writer, for keeping her consistent, or players for expecting something that was never going to happen. I do, all things considered, understand why you might want to avoid a debate. If I were this wrong about something, I wouldn't want to debate it either.

[skotie]

People who don't like Sera do so because they haven't witnessed her true power.

I was quite capable of killing every dragon in the game without her being present, not about to start bringing her now because her class is OP.

[Nathair Nimheil]

What do you mean she's static? She goes from being a loner to being part of a family - that's her big change.

I do agree. Her change is somewhat subtle though and it seems that some people demand/expect her to to go through a Scroogelike transition. (Usually a Scroogelike transition to conform to their own position by some strange coincidence.)

[robertthebard]

The problem is that there is even less "proof" to support the Maker she's clinging to, and there's really no reason to agree with her logic of "if there were elf gods, there's no Maker at all," as there's really no reason to believe they can't both exist in some way (something I wish I could've pointed out).
 
I'm not saying she should embrace the elf gods or anything silly like that, but her continuing to insist I'm stupid because my dwarf shrugged and said she really had no idea what's going on with regards to ANY of the gods doesn't really reflect well on her. I get that it's mostly because she's an agnostic that desperately doesn't want to be one, and dammit reinforce her beliefs because oh crap what if there's nothing, but I also get why people would find that really off putting.

How do you figure? So because someone in the Chantry in Kirkwall saw Justice, should they change their religious beliefs? We have absolutely 0 proof that Mythal is anything more than Justice. Can she exist outside the Fade w/out possessing someone? We have been presented with nothing that should be Faith shattering for anyone that really has Faith in their religion, except, of course, for about 90% of everything the Dalish believe makes them superior to other elves. I bet that's going to be a fun story to bring back to the clan, eh? That's really the only belief structure in the whole game that's going to be hit. Seeing a bunch of magic at work? Sorry, were there no mages before we went to the Temple of Mythal? There were, there were 3 in our group, or could be. The Inquisitor has a mark on his/her hand that can close Fade rifts, and the Breach. Does this qualify them for godhood? Cory seems to think so, and while the Andrastians fall short of godhood, they have elevated them to Prophet status.

As an aside, did your Human Inquisitor denounce the Maker after the Temple, assuming they followed the Maker at all? If you did follow the Maker, and didn't denounce Him, why are you expecting Sera to claim her religion's wrong and believe that there are other Gods? Especially considering the above, you know, where we don't even know if they're really gods, and not actual demons/spirits? I know my Human didn't see enough to make her believe that they were actual Gods. She did raise an eyebrow at the whole thing, but not enough to shatter her faith, since she was a devout Andrastian. This, even after the closing credits, and I'm still not convinced they aren't more like Justice, or Cole, than Divine.

[skotie]

How do you figure? So because someone in the Chantry in Kirkwall saw Justice, should they change their religious beliefs? We have absolutely 0 proof that Mythal is anything more than Justice. Can she exist outside the Fade w/out possessing someone? We have been presented with nothing that should be Faith shattering for anyone that really has Faith in their religion, except, of course, for about 90% of everything the Dalish believe makes them superior to other elves. I bet that's going to be a fun story to bring back to the clan, eh? That's really the only belief structure in the whole game that's going to be hit. Seeing a bunch of magic at work? Sorry, were there no mages before we went to the Temple of Mythal? There were, there were 3 in our group, or could be. The Inquisitor has a mark on his/her hand that can close Fade rifts, and the Breach. Does this qualify them for godhood? Cory seems to think so, and while the Andrastians fall short of godhood, they have elevated them to Prophet status.

As an aside, did your Human Inquisitor denounce the Maker after the Temple, assuming they followed the Maker at all? If you did follow the Maker, and didn't denounce Him, why are you expecting Sera to claim her religion's wrong and believe that there are other Gods? Especially considering the above, you know, where we don't even know if they're really gods, and not actual demons/spirits? I know my Human didn't see enough to make her believe that they were actual Gods. She did raise an eyebrow at the whole thing, but not enough to shatter her faith, since she was a devout Andrastian. This, even after the closing credits, and I'm still not convinced they aren't more like Justice, or Cole, than Divine.

Prophet status because they got thier magic power from an ancient elvan orb belonging to an elvan god, Fen'Harel! XD

 

But right it could all have been the maker! Sorry carry on!

[Nathair Nimheil]

It's not. It's defined as constantly changing, never stopping.

"A Dynamic Character" is a well defined technical term in literary analysis. Attempting to redefine its intent and meaning through a pedantic and sophomoric etymological analysis of the component words in the term is disingenuous at best.

 

No regret for her Red Jenny contacts being killed

This is fractally untrue. She did not create the situation in which those contacts were killed and yet she deeply feels their loss. This is made explicit; the writer puts it right there into the text for us to make sure we understand the significance of the event to Sera's arc and development. It is blunt exposition. I will refrain from speculating on how (or even if) you managed to miss it anyway.

[Nathair Nimheil]

The problem? She doesn't change the way some people want her to.

Sera seems very much a perfect storm of politics, gender identity, gender role conformity, response to authority and entitlement. Very disappointing, it appears, since the The Hero is entitled to change her into some combination of a nurturing, nesting, straight, polite, mature, randian, obedient, 1950's housewife. (Obviously the specific combination varies, ie. some people would like to wield their awesome force of awesome personal awesomeness to make her over into a hawt lesbian adventuress in the bedroom while a polite, mature, obedient, nurturing, conservative madonna elsewhere.) So it appears, anyway.

[robertthebard]

Prophet status because they got thier magic power from an ancient elvan orb belonging to an elvan god, Fen'Harel! XD
 
But right it could all have been the maker! Sorry carry on!

Prior to the end of Haven, how many people had any clue of it's origin?

That aside, how did you survive the blast? How did you end up with the anchor, instead of having the orb? You see, as much as we may want to, we really can't rule out Divine Intervention. I would, myself, just as soon chalk it up to blind luck, and, for all we know, it could have been. However, there's also a chance that it wasn't. I have no more proof that it was than you do that it wasn't, but if one is inclined to believe in the Maker, it is certainly something they would consider, even after they find out how you really came to have the anchor, or, more accurately, what the anchor is. This is, however, something that doesn't require proof, the anchor seals rifts, and the breach. To the faithful, it was exactly what they needed, exactly when they needed it, and that's divine providence. Skeptics can try to point out the obvious, but the truth is, they're not going to be able to shake what the faithful believe, because, as with all things faith based, they have that faith, and it's heavy armor against what they would view as heresy.

[Adelthorne]

She is Little like Wrex, First time I meet Wrex in ME1 I thought no I dont want a Ninja turtel in my gang, So I decline, but he was a stubborn basterd, and tag along anyway. And I never regret that, since he has the funniest small talk ever in a game. Sera is the same. She is a ugly female elf, but she makes you laugh every time, I rather have her then my other Rogues in the party.

[skotie]

Prior to the end of Haven, how many people had any clue of it's origin?

That aside, how did you survive the blast? How did you end up with the anchor, instead of having the orb? You see, as much as we may want to, we really can't rule out Divine Intervention. I would, myself, just as soon chalk it up to blind luck, and, for all we know, it could have been. However, there's also a chance that it wasn't. I have no more proof that it was than you do that it wasn't, but if one is inclined to believe in the Maker, it is certainly something they would consider, even after they find out how you really came to have the anchor, or, more accurately, what the anchor is. This is, however, something that doesn't require proof, the anchor seals rifts, and the breach. To the faithful, it was exactly what they needed, exactly when they needed it, and that's divine providence. Skeptics can try to point out the obvious, but the truth is, they're not going to be able to shake what the faithful believe, because, as with all things faith based, they have that faith, and it's heavy armor against what they would view as heresy.

Actually I think I have far more proof that it was other forces at work than the maker why you ask? Solas, he has been helping and physically guiding you right from the start.

 

Also I like how divine intervention only seems to apply to the maker. As if all the other possible gods would not also look out for thier people and be able to guide them in the same matter, yet when more evidence appears that it was likely the elvan pantheon shaping events more than anything else everyone refutes it, the work of demons I tell you!

 

Also was it the maker who saved our butts in the fifth blight or was it an old elvan goddess who rescued two wardens who went on to defeat the arch demon, right I'm sure the maker made her do it.

[Heimdall]

The problem is that there is even less "proof" to support the Maker she's clinging to, and there's really no reason to agree with her logic of "if there were elf gods, there's no Maker at all," as there's really no reason to believe they can't both exist in some way (something I wish I could've pointed out).

I'm not saying she should embrace the elf gods or anything silly like that, but her continuing to insist I'm stupid because my dwarf shrugged and said she really had no idea what's going on with regards to ANY of the gods doesn't really reflect well on her. I get that it's mostly because she's an agnostic that desperately doesn't want to be one, and dammit reinforce her beliefs because oh crap what if there's nothing, but I also get why people would find that really off putting.

I get why people would be put off, but I think most people fail to grasp the existential dread motivating the way she's clinging to her faith in the Maker. It's easier to call her stupid. She's a person that needs a stable idea of how the world works, admitting that there could be more to it, more gods, opens the door to possibilities, including the possibility of "The Nothing".

Perhaps the most childish aspect of Sera: she's pretty much incapable of dealing with strange thoughts and ideas that scare her. Remember that part of the romance where she runs away from Inquisitor and screams at her to leave because she just had a dream about the Inuisitor dying, she can't cope with even the thought of it. Beneath all the bluster and crude humor, Sera's basically a scared kid.

[Ennai and 54 others]

This is all very simple.Sera is not liked because she is unlikable,worsened by the fact that she is unkillable.People have hated for less.
She is not objectively funny,many people don't like her type of simple humor.
She is rude at times.She called the inquisitor stupid.
Some people have problems with her morality.
She is not very easy on the eyes(that's usually something to fall back on)
She is not intelligent

All of these things tend to net dissapproval,no matter how justified.

This is most likely what the writer intended.

Get over it


I don't know what people who defend her are even trying to accomplish.LOL